God Bless Broken America

Comment by: Karen

I heard that story on TAL a few months ago and it just broke my heart. Unbelievable.

Stephan, does the fact that these things don’t happen everywhere somehow make Siamang “paranoid” for raising the issue that they do happen and need to be recognized?

The fact is that these stories don’t often get national publicity, but we in the atheist community do hear about them and they happen with some regularity, and not just in the bible belt.

Even if they happened only once or twice, that would be once or twice too many. And the fact that the officials in these jurisdictions become part of the problem (rather than standing up for civil liberties) makes them quite disturbing to me.

Comment by: Stephan

Raghu, I don’t considering non-obnoxious proselytizing to be anywhere near what Siamang commented on. Plus, that kind of thing is protected by freedom of speech. The problem Siamang has is that the issues he brought up happened at school and were not stopped by the school officials. That goes beyond proselytizing and beyond the limits of free speech. Similar issues have been uncovered in the military and should be dealt with quickly and decisively.

Karen, I think saying “this is America” overstates the problem and will cause many people just to stop listening at that point. It’s a “boy who cried wolf” or “the sky is falling” sort of scenario. By overstating the problem you look like a fringe element nutjob with little grip on reality. You will enrage those on your fringe and alienate everyone else. I say this knowing that Siamang is not a fringe element nutjob, but I also know he has a tendency toward paranoia at times.

I think it is far more productive to put the problem into perspective and fight it when it comes up rather than exaggerate it and portray it as a much bigger problem than it really is.

Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about a school in Delaware. But, as I stated above, I would not hesitate to speak up if it was happening in my kids’ schools or in my neighborhood. After 9/11 I talked with a Muslim neighbor of mine and told him to let me know if he received any threats or had any problems because of his faith. Fortunately there were no problems, but I would have stood up for him if there had been. Most Christians I know would have done the same thing.

I know some pretty offensive Christians, but I don’t know any who would do what is described in the stories above.

Comment by: Stephan

Siamang, if I had the time and initiative I could find all kinds of stories about coffee burns. People get injured all the time by coffee. It’s a very dangerous thing.

See how fun that was!

I’m not trying to compare coffee to bigotry, but the number of links you can find really don’t mean it’s a wide spread problem. I agree that there are isolated cases out there, but continue to exaggerate the issue.

Has it happened to you? Or anyone you directly know (not counting people you have met on the internet)? I’m not talking about being offended by someone, but having your civil rights threatened by Christians. Really, has it ever happened to you?

Again, I’m not trying to down-play the problem, but I’m trying to put it into perspective. Most Christians I know would fight against the very things you point out above. I don’t think that makes this an epidemic. If it happens in my neighborhood I will fight it. I don’t know what else I can do.

I guess that’s another thing that bothers me about this type of post. You offer no solutions and recommend no course of action. All it does is enrage and divide people, but does nothing to try to solve the problem or unite people. How about, instead of pointing out problems 1000 miles away, you talk about solutions we can all practice every day.

Comment by: Karen

Karen, I think saying “this is America” overstates the problem and will cause many people just to stop listening at that point. It’s a “boy who cried wolf” or “the sky is falling” sort of scenario. By overstating the problem you look like a fringe element nutjob with little grip on reality.

You’re making an argument for silence here, and that tactic does not resonate in a democracy. If there’s a problem in America, and Siamang has documented above that there is one, I don’t believe we who care should ignore or suppress it just because bringing it up is unpopular.

Sorry if it bothers you, but I think change for the good comes about by dialog and discussion, and sometimes by civil disobedience and legal action. Nothing changes if we shut our eyes and hope the problem goes away.

But, as I stated above, I would not hesitate to speak up if it was happening in my kids’ schools or in my neighborhood. After 9/11 I talked with a Muslim neighbor of mine and told him to let me know if he received any threats or had any problems because of his faith. Fortunately there were no problems, but I would have stood up for him if there had been. Most Christians I know would have done the same thing.

Good for you; I commend you for doing that.

Comment by: Stephan

You’re making an argument for silence here, and that tactic does not resonate in a democracy.

No, I’m not. There is a difference between saying nothing and saying the right thing. Blowing it up into an epidemic is going to far. Saying nothing would not be enough. Pointing out individual problems and dealing with them is appropriate. Getting involved locally to prevent problems would be a good idea too.

Siamang, I get your point, but some of these “facts” can be a little deceiving. For instance:

Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000.

Does that mean we need to allow people to smoke peyote and sacrifice goats in their living rooms? Does it mean we allow devout Mormons to have multiple wives? Does it mean we allow radical Muslims to train hijackers? If that’s the case then count me with the 26%.

You can cite statistics and quote surveys all day, but I’m just not seeing the effects in the real world. There is a difference between what people say they believe to an anonymous poller on the phone and what they do in real life. I have never seen any of these things happen in my schools. I have never met anyone who has been threatened because of their beliefs. Sure, I read about it in the news, but in a country of 300,000,000 people there are going to be some anomalies. There are going to be mistakes. When they happen you deal with them. But you don’t extrapolate those problems out to where they do not exist.

I am guessing that both of you (Siamang and Karen) give money to organizations that fight for minority rights. That’s great. Are you also involved in your local school board? Are you involved in city government? Do you write your congressional representatives? These are practical things you can do to improve people’s perception of atheists. This is what atheists need to do if they want things to change. Complaining about it on a blog will only enrage your supporters and further distance your detractors.

Do you see what I mean?

Comment by: Siamang

Does that mean we need to allow people to smoke peyote and sacrifice goats in their living rooms? Does it mean we allow devout Mormons to have multiple wives? Does it mean we allow radical Muslims to train hijackers?

The question didn’t ask about “all religious practices or all actions of groups calling themselves religious, including violent actions.” It asked about “all religious groups.” That would be interesting to find out how those numbers would change if they asked the question you answered. But the fact is, they didn’t. I’m guessing if you included “training hijackers” in the question we wouldn’t be talking 26%, but rather 99.999%.

I have never seen any of these things happen in my schools. I have never met anyone who has been threatened because of their beliefs.

If it did happen, how would you know? In a previous post, you asked has this happened to people I know, and not people I know by way of the internet. Sorry, but I know very, very few atheists outside of the internet… we don’t exactly meet up every Sunday. However if I did go to meetings at the Center for Inquiry, I might know more people that this stuff happens to.

We did have one regular contributer to the discussion board who during the course of this discussion came out as an atheist at his work and was fired, you may recall that. Luckily, nothing like that has happened to me, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, or that it’s too rare to worry much about.

If I am only allowed to talk about the eight or so atheists I know from non-internet use, I guess I’ll have to ask them if they’ve ever hit this stuff. Already on the Friendly Atheist discussion about Matthew LaClair, one person I know outside the internet, Julie, posts that there’s a preaching teacher in the public school she works at, and the administration does nothing about it. I guess it might take the threat of a lawsuit to do something, though I don’t think a suit is likely because the students are poor adults learning English.

I don’t think I’m going to face much trouble with our beliefs once my child starts elementary school because we live in a very religiously diverse neighborhood and Jewish tolerance and diversity groups have already done a lot of the heavy lifting as far as that’s concerned.

Are you also involved in your local school board? Are you involved in city government? Do you write your congressional representatives?

Yes, yes and yes. My daughter’s grandmother works for the School Board, and my wife will begin volunteering in the classroom as soon as school starts next fall. Yes, I have been involved in city government in the area of alternative private transportation and public safety… not religious tolerance, but that’s a good suggestion as well. Do I write my representatives, yes I do. However I see them as pandering to religious interests almost above all else, so I think it’s prudent to discuss these things online on a blog to attempt to change the broader discussion.

If I want to change the fact that 53% of American won’t vote for an atheist, can I really change that by writing my congressmembers? Seems to me it’s the American electorate that’s the problem. I mean, with numbers like that, what possible reason would they have to even address my concerns? I’m better off not mentioning that I’m an atheist at all.

How do I change that? By discussing things with members of the majority who can be brought to a sympathetic response. Hello, majority-religion member!

Complaining about it on a blog will only enrage your supporters and further distance your detractors.

I disagree. Blogging is communication. Before the internet, atheists like me had very little voice, and roughly zero ability to shape the public conversation. Perhaps people SHOULD be enraged about this stuff. Greta Christiana makes some awfully good points in her famous post about atheist anger:

Because anger has driven every major movement for social change in this country, and probably in the world. The labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the modern feminist movement, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement in the Sixties, the anti-war movement today, you name it… all of them have had, as a major driving force, a tremendous amount of anger. Anger over injustice, anger over mistreatment and brutality, anger over helplessness.

I mean, why the hell else would people bother to mobilize social movements? Social movements are hard. They take time, they take energy, they sometimes take serious risk of life and limb, community and career. Nobody would f______ bother if they weren’t furious about something.

So when you tell an atheist (or for that matter, a woman or a queer or a person of color or whatever) not to be so angry, you are, in essence, telling us to disempower ourselves. You’re telling us to lay down one of the single most powerful tools we have at our disposal. You’re telling us to lay down a tool that no social change movement has ever been able to do without. You’re telling us to be polite and diplomatic, when history shows that polite diplomacy in a social change movement works far, far better when it’s coupled with passionate anger. In a battle between David and Goliath, you’re telling David to put down his slingshot and just… I don’t know. Gnaw Goliath on the ankles or something.

I’ll acknowledge that anger is a difficult tool in a social movement. A dangerous one even. It can make people act rashly; it can make it harder to think clearly; it can make people treat potential allies as enemies. In the worst-case scenario, it can even lead to violence. Anger is valid, it’s valuable, it’s necessary… but it can also misfire, and badly.

But unless we’re actually endangering or harming somebody, it is not up to believers to tell atheists when we should and should not use this tool. It is not up to believers to tell atheists that we’re going too far with the anger and need to calm down. Any more than it’s up to white people to say it to black people, or men to say it to women, or straights to say it to queers. When it comes from believers, it’s not helpful. It’s patronizing. It comes across as another attempt to defang us and shut us up. And it’s just going to make us angrier.

Comment by: Siamang

I suppose the question is, what is your goal? Angry atheists like Dawkins and Harris are not going to change things,

I’d argue that they already have changed things. First off, they got atheists to speak up and stop with the self-imposed invisibility that we’ve been under since O’Hair was murdered and the Democratic elites and the beltway pundits decided that secularists who were Democrats shouldn’t talk about rights for atheists lest they lose votes.

I think the internet helped with that as well. When CNN runs a hit-piece called “why do atheists inspire such hatred?” and then invite a Jew and two christians and no atheists to a panel discussion where atheists are told to “stop whining and shut up” and nobody is even supporting the atheist position …. finally we have a tool to rally respondents to this kind of crap, and stand up nationally and even internationally and besiege them with messages and phone calls.

If you think anger is working for you, then go ahead and use it. But it really doesn’t make me sympathetic to your cause, and I’m already on your side. Knowing that, how do you think it will influence someone who opposes you?

Yes stuff like a child called Jew Boy makes me angry. Yes a little girl being told she’ll burn in hell because her family is Muslim makes me angry. If it doesn’t make you angry, maybe the angry people in this country need to speak up more.

There are any number of other ways to explain women’s suffrage, the end of slavery and any other civil movements that does not include anger, at least not as a means that is justified by the end.

Let’s hear a counter-example, then. Name one civil rights cause that got what it wanted but wasn’t angry about it.

Besides that, atheists comparing themselves to African Americans, women and gays is a bit of a stretch. When was the atheist slave trade? How many atheists are being denied the right to vote? When were atheists denied the right to marry whoever they pleased?

Listen, these aren’t the things we’re complaining about. You might as well say “when was the women’s slave trade” to argue against suffrage. You might as well say “when where Gays denied the right to vote?” as an argument against Gay civil rights.

The fact that discrimination takes different forms (and yes, lesser and greater forms) does not mean that injustices do not occur. Matthew LaClair was subjected to death threats. Do they not “count” as death threats because nobody burned a cross?

What we are seeing in the stories you related are things that are clearly illegal, and would be shown as such by the court if they went that far. If people are willing to go there, that’s great. If they are not, then they should not complain about it.

Really? Why not? Can’t we change people’s minds in other ways than lawsuits?

I know the person you mentioned who was fired for being an atheist decided not to challenge it. I think that inaction hurts your cause as much as parents shouting “jew-boy” in a school board meeting.

I call that blaming the victim. It seems to me you are more impressed by action and lawsuits than by discussion. I hope you’ll join with me then in supporting Michael Newdow’s lawsuit challenging the Pledge of Allegiance.

I don’t want my daughter to have to choose between honoring our nation and honoring our beliefs as a family. The only third way is to teach her that words and oaths don’t really mean anything, and she should just say it to get along without offending people and appearing to be another one of those angry atheists, or just as bad, an innocent kindergarten pawn of a parent with a bee in his bonnet and an “agenda”.

Sadly, coming in September, she’s going to be led every day by a Government representative in a public oath that was proclaimed by President Eisenhower as this: “From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”

So let’s fire up the lawsuit, then, eh? Newdow made his oral arguments just a few weeks ago, to the 9th Circuit. That’s fighting back!

Go Newdow!

Comment by: Stephan

If it doesn’t make you angry, maybe the angry people in this country need to speak up more.

Maybe the difference is between being angry about an injustice and acting out in anger. Anger is a natural reaction. If someone punches me, I will be angry. But does that justify me punching them back? Should I tell everyone what a jerk they are? Or might there be a better response?

I call that blaming the victim.

If I was saying that the firing was his fault for being an atheist, that would be blaming the victim.

Let’s say a neighbor kid vandalized my house and I chose to do nothing about it. Then he goes and vandalizes the houses of several other neighbors. Would I not have some responsibility in that case? Am I justified in being angry about something if I do nothing to stop it?

It seems to me you are more impressed by action and lawsuits than by discussion.

Actually, I hate lawsuits, but when someone breaks the law that is the correct response. When someone’s civil rights are taken away, legal action is the only way to get them back. Of course, it helps to have public opinion on your side, and atheists have not done a very good job at that. Having your most prominent spokespeople (Dawkins, Harris, etc.) basically say that believing in God is like believing in Santa - well, that’s not going to get you any points with the believing majority.

You and I have discussed the Pledge issue before. You successfully convinced me that “under God” should be removed, but I have to be honest and say that it is not a high priority for me, so I probably won’t be working in support of Newdow. If anyone asks me what I believe, though, I will be sure to tell them, even if they don’t agree with me. I could really have some fun with my in-laws on a subject like this one.

Comment by: Karen

Maybe the difference is between being angry about an injustice and acting out in anger. Anger is a natural reaction. If someone punches me, I will be angry. But does that justify me punching them back? Should I tell everyone what a jerk they are? Or might there be a better response?

I think that blogging and discussing these issues with people in our everyday lives is a perfectly appropriate response. Much better than going out and punching someone. Right?

Comment by: Laura

Also, anyone who doesn’t believe that there is a very real and politically powerful Christian movement in this country to eradicate church-state separation, exclude all those with other [non] beliefs, and condone discrimination against them should check out Michelle Goldberg’s The Rise of Christian Nationalism.

Or look at our federally-funded “faith-based initiatives”, House Resolution 888, politicians’ continued refusal to act against so-called “values voters”, etc. Or Mitt Romney’s disappointing remix of President Kennedy’s wonderful 1960 speech on the Establishment Clause.

The rights and beliefs of the few are being disregarded in favor of those of the many. When Katie Couric is asking presidential candidates are asked “If you were elected president, what one book - other than the Bible - would you bring with you to the White House?” the assumption of faith has reached a critical level. It’s not so much that other beliefs are being discriminated against (even though they absolutely are), but that their very existence is being disrespectfully ignored.

I think that is the main issue that Siamang is trying to address(?).

Comment by: Stephan

Ok, fine, I’ll drop it. I’m trying, as someone who is sympathetic to you, to help you reach out to people like me. All you can say is that I am wrong. That’s fine. Keep going with the angry atheist thing and see how far it gets you.

You may find out that there is no vast Christian conspiracy anymore than there is a vast atheist conspiracy. Sure, there are the Falwell and Coulter fringe idiots out there. But I hear lots of Christians disagreeing with them. I rarely, if ever, hear atheists disown the rantings of Dawkins and Harris. They are held up as role models by most atheists as they tell me how stupid I am to believe in God.

Yeah, keep it up and see how far it gets you.

I’m done.

Comment by: Stephan

Helen, I’m trying to be pragmatic. All of you have already won me over, so I’m not setting conditions for whether or not I will listen to you (I’m still here). I’m saying that if you want to change people’s minds about who atheists are, you won’t doing it by being angry.

To go back to the old civil rights debate, who do you think changed more minds: Malcolm X or Martin Luther King, Jr.? One preached anger and hatred, and sought to make things even by bringing others down. The other saw the potential of working together and sought to make things even by elevating those who were disenfranchised.

Now which tactic seems to be favored by most prominent atheists? Dividing people and bringing them down? Or uniting people and lifting them up?

The book that Siamang is currently reading seems to be a strong contrast to what most atheists are saying. I see very little respect for believers in the most prominent atheist writers and most atheist postings on the internet.

Do you think you can gain respect by insulting others?

Comment by: Stephan

Siamang, Thanks for your candid words. I forget sometimes how reasonable you can be, and I apologize for that.

I honestly have not found Hemant to be all that friendly, with his fair share of “look at the stupid Christians” type of posts. With all of the unfriendly atheists that comment on his site it’s like throwing raw meat to a bunch of wolves. They love that stuff.

I don’t think you need to be negative and vociferous against the Dawkins crowd, but I think you can disagree with someone and draw a distinction without going there. You can be civil and set a good example.

I don’t think holding up a handful of extremists and saying “This is America” accomplishes that. That’s what I have been trying to say.

Comment by: Laura

Sure, there are the Falwell and Coulter fringe idiots out there. But I hear lots of Christians disagreeing with them. I rarely, if ever, hear atheists disown the rantings of Dawkins and Harris.

I think you are completely right, Stephan. As I pointed out before, it would be ridiculous to automatically assume that the majority of Christians agree with such insane “fringe idiots”. I would like to think that this is obvious to most people.

I also think you’re right in saying that most atheists actually do agree with a lot of things our “spokespeople” say. One possible explanation for this is that, so far, Dawkins et al haven’t been around long enough to make many statements that would divide the proverbial “choir” they are preaching to. Another possibility is that having any prominent outspoken atheists that are given any media attention at all is a new and exciting phenomenon for us.

Christians - and religion in general - have had centuries’ worth of proselytizers to promote their beliefs. Non-believers, on the other hand, have been essentially non-existent in the public arena. The increasing attention being paid to religion can have the effect of making atheists feel more and more isolated. Having anyone at all - let alone highly articulate people with well developed and rational arguments - speak up as a dissenting voice is somewhat of a milestone for the nonbelieving minority.

I happen to think that this shift in public attention has the potential to be harmful to both sides of the religion debate. In today’s media culture, only the most inflammatory, hateful, and ignorant remarks are discussed and only the juiciest bits of scandal and gossip are dissected. This climate presents only those like Falwell, Coulter, O’Reilly, Haggard, etc as examples of Christianity. Likewise, atheism is being represented mostly by older white men who - by virtue of their enormous intellect and passion for their cause - can come across as smug, arrogant, and confrontational to those who don’t share their beliefs.

However, for those of us who have long kept our views [at least somewhat] bottled up in the presence of an overwhelming religious majority, the freedom of seeing those views actively discussed in the public forum just might be clouding our vision. Am I making my point at all?

Comment by: Stephan

Thanks to Siamang, Laura and Jim for bringing some closure here. Ok, I’ll cut you atheists a little slack while you “find your voice”. I think the fact that you are posting here at all means you are more reasonable than the vocal and strident types who get more attention. I’ll try to keep listening and working with you to MTWABP.

Comment by: Ir (Helen)

Stephan, I do appreciate how you’ve stayed in this conversation (the blog in general, I mean - not just this particular blog entry conversation). Thanks for your patience.